Cascadia Report

Blog

  • B.C. launches trade push to Asia, Canada

    British Columbia this week unveiled a new push to build ties with Asia and remove barriers to doing business elsewhere in Canada. Both could help it reach the goal of being Cascadia’s top gateway.

    The Asia Pacific Initiative outlines a series of steps to boost B.C.’s profile in Asia. That’s on top of federal dollars to boost trade infrastructure.

    Meanwhile an agreement allowing businesses to operate freely between B.C. and Alberta for the first time went into affect this week and could help bolster Vancouver’s position for trade. B.C. is already shopping the agreement to other provinces, though there are predictable worries that locking in trade undermines local democracy in the region.

  • Changing minds about light rail

    Residents fight the extension of light rail, claiming it will cost too much and bring changes that will ruin their neighborhoods. They even vote out representatives who favor the project.

    Sounds like Seattle during its glacially slow light rail project. But it’s what happened in the Portland area over plans to extend MAX southward.

    Now the area is coming around. Maybe Seattle-area neighborhoods will be next.

  • Latest trade policies may hurt region’s economy

    In recent days the Bush administration slapped tariffs on paper imported from China and annouced a free-trade pact with South Korea. The moves could harm the long-term goal of more trade that’s critical for Cascadia’s economy.

    Container ship in port; photo by lib.washington.eduThe tariffs on Chinese products are an attempt to placate critics in Congress rather than address the economic trends that make U.S. products less competitive. In fact the U.S. has increasingly little leverage on China because that country is financing our runaway spending.

    Today’s announcement of a free-trade deal with South Korea also is less favorable than it seems. It appears to be another bilateral deal that ultimately protects some parts of U.S. industry at the expense of a backlash both overseas and among displaced U.S. workers. Cascadia’s long-term interests would be better served by pushing for comprehensive trade agreements that level the playing field between multiple countries.

    There’s no question that trade can be improved by increments. Unfortunately these developments — on top of earlier tariffs on Canadian lumber and foreign steel, and a series of unfair bilateral trade deals — round out a dubious record on promoting trade.

  • Sprawl likely to foil B.C.’s growth plans

    Economic incentives in British Columbia are likely to stimulate more sprawl around Vancouver, contrary to the province’s stated goals of reducing pollution, according to an series this week in the Globe and Mail.

    One of the chief culprits is the province’s ambitious “Gateway Project,” a package of roads and bridges designed to accommodate increased trade. As in Seattle and Portland, there are few economic reasons to favor transit and dense development over development in the ever-expanding suburbs.

  • Leadership on green industry from California

    One surprising advocate of incentives to encourage cleaner industry is California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. I finally got around to reading this succinct interview in the latest Fortune magazine.

    The intro makes the case that Schwarzenegger is one of several Republicans who are working on programs to develop environmentally sound business. It puts it charitably: “The Republican party has not recently been associated with asertive environmental policy.”

    A few choice passages from the interview:

    I know the American mentality when it comes to finances is to look at the quarterly returns. But there are decisions you will make today, right now, that will take you in a different direction if you think ahead. I have to think, How is California, with its population growth, going to get its energy supply in 50 years?

    Does the GOP get this?

    No. There are people in both parties who don’t get it, but I would say I have a tougher time selling those things to the Republicans.

    There’s a billboard in Michigan accusing me of costing the car industry $85 billion. [Sponsored by Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg, the sign says, ARNOLD TO MICHIGAN: DROP DEAD! The message refers to the damage that detractors say the new emissions standards will cause the U.S. auto industry.]

    Those people look at this in a narrow way rather than really studying the subject and recognizing that this actually gives us an opportunity to create a whole new industry of clean cars and clean engines and components to build those engines. In California, what we call clean-tech industries are exploding left and right.

    Won’t there be losers with stricter pollution standards?

    Only as much as the auto industry or any industry has to make changes to adapt to the behavior of customers. You have to react quickly. Even if we don’t do anything about it, the Japanese will, the Chinese will, the Germans will. Detroit is struggling with it, yes, because they are behind.

  • Taxpayer bailout of rural areas to continue

    The U.S. government is about to bail out the finances of dozens of counties in Cascadia that depend on the depressed timber industry. It needs to look for a longer term fix instead.

    logging near eugene; freelargephotos.comThe latest proposal would spend billions of dollars over the next five years to compensate rural areas nationwide hurt by cutbacks in logging. The funds would forestall cutbacks in schools, roads and other public services that could paralyze much of the West.

    So far, so good. At a time when the U.S. apparently has money to fund war in Iraq, cut taxes and subsidize corporations, why not bail out areas that have depended on timber for generations?

    The problem is that there’s little sign those areas will be weaned from the subsidy when the next five years of funding ends. Instead we should be working toward a system where costs are carried more by those who benefit (for example, commuters pay congestion pricing, companies pay their way and rural areas become more self-sustaining).

    The worst outcome would be to spread taxpayer largesse beyond the current list of recipients, sustaining areas where economic growth can’t. The Albany, Ore. newspaper editorialized for a change in the subsidy system, but its solution is more logging in federal lands. Never mind that the land actually belongs to everyone, not just residents of counties closest to them

  • Portland may get into bicycle business

    Portland, already known for being pedestrian and bike-friendly, may get into the bicycle-rental business.

    Apparently inspiration for the idea comes from France, where nearly 21,000 bicycles will soon be available for public use in Paris alone. Portland’s proposal calls for advertising on the bikes to subsidize the program. The question is whether taxpayers, who gladly subsidize the cost of roads, will be willing to pick up the remainder of the tab.

  • Remove freeways, sure. And provide alternatives

    Seattle’s waterfront is in political limbo since voters this month rejected replacing the viaduct with new freeways either in a tunnel or overhead. Maybe the idea of a freeway itself is the problem.

    Cities from New York to Seoul have replaced freeways without seeing massive traffic jams. In Cascadia, Portland opted for the first MAX line instead of building a new freeway. Vancouver has survived with almost no freeways, yet traffic and sprawl there isn’t much worse than in many American cities.

    One of the comments on this article correctly points out that cities should be in the business of providing incentives and new options, not eliminating them. That’s why adding transit and building more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods is important.

    To get there the author suggests congestion pricing, of course, and a “parking cash-out” system. Here’s his definition:

    Businesses could be required to give employees commute allowances instead of free parking. Employees could use the allowance to pay for the parking they used to get for free, they could use it to pay for transit, they could keep part of the allowance if they car-pooled to work, or they could keep the entire allowance if they walked or bicycled to work. It is estimated that this policy could reduce commuter traffic (and peak demand for road space) by about 20%.

  • Air travel to Europe may get easier

    Getting to Europe from Cascadia may become cheaper and easier, thanks to an agreement between the U.S. and the European Union approved today.

    planes at airport; usatoday.comThe deal essentially lets airlines fly between any two points across the Atlantic, and opens London’s Heathrow Airport to more carriers (currently it’s limited to United, American, British and Virgin Atlantic).

    That means more competition at Heathrow and connections between more cities across the ocean. For example, KLM is likely to replace flight slots at Heathrow currently filled with small turboprop planes flying to Europe with lucrative flights to the U.S.

    The agreement should be seen as just a start. The U.S., which wants to protect its strapped carriers, successfully blocked plans to allow foreign airlines to take passengers between points inside the U.S. Imagine how service might change if Americans were allowed to fly British, Air France or Lufthansa from New York to Seattle instead of Delta. Hopefully increased competition across the Atlantic will encourage consumers to support allowing more of it close to home. The next step could be allowing service and price — not regulations — to dictate choices.

  • Cascadia cities need a safety valve

    Sure there’s healthy rivalry in Cascadia among Vancouver, Seattle and Portland. But between Portland and Vancouver, Washington?

    Willamette Week explores the idea that smug Portland benefits in many ways from the Vancouver on the other side of the Columbia River.

    Strict growth rules have helped make Portland into what’s widely considered a development model. Maybe Clark County, Wash., which has nearly doubled in population since 1990, now functions as a safety valve for Portland?

    What if the region’s success at controlling growth while still maintaining one of the nation’s more robust economies is because of…Vancouver? Or more specifically, because Vancouver has fewer land-use laws and limits on growth? Has Vancouver become a convenient place to handle Portland’s overflow, for those who wanted to live, work and play in the area, but who also wanted a bigger yard, lower taxes and a house on a cul-de-sac? All this so Portland could build its light rail, trams and condo towers.

    The point is just as valid around the Puget Sound area and in the Lower Mainland. Dense development makes transit and the infrastructure to preserve open space feasible. Where is the safety valve for the region?